On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:11 PM Kurniagusta Dwinto <kurnia.d....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It's not obvious to me that "pure" is a characteristic that is important > > enough > > to be singled out and added to the language > > the name "pure" may be debatable, but the characteristic is the same with > "constexpr" in C++, although I also don't have a strong reason why this is > important beside separation IO and non-IO
Well, C++ is a very different language with very different goals. I think history shows that C++ is much more comfortable adding new features than Go is. Ian > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 7:05 AM Kurniagusta Dwinto <kurnia.d....@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Additionally, this feature complement new generic feature, >> this feature will help anyone that trying to use functional programming >> pattern (like monad pattern) in their code >> >> On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 6:52:31 AM UTC+7 Kurniagusta Dwinto wrote: >>> >>> Adding pure marker will give information to the programmer that the >>> function will not do any side effect, the compiler just gives compile error >>> when the programmer disagrees about the contract, like doing IO operation >>> on pure function. >>> So in the end, this feature focuses on helping the programmer, not the >>> compiler, to make sure the function does not do any io operation inside it. >>> I like how Haskell separate IO and non-IO function, they create a clear >>> separation between those worlds, >>> >>> On the other side, the compiler can evaluate some function in compile-time, >>> although this feature maybe not really needed yet, this will help the >>> programmer to create pre-computed value instead of copying some magic blob >>> data, >>> >>> >>> > I agree that adding the keyword would let the compiler enforce it, but >>> > that doesn't seem all that big a benefit to me. It also seems like >>> > something that could be done by an analysis tool rather than requiring >>> > a change to the language. >>> >>> That wouldn't work with interfaces, like >>> >>> purefunc Hai(x interface{}) int { >>> val := 42 >>> if x, ok := x.(interface { pure Value() int }); ok { >>> val += x.Value() >>> } >>> return val >>> } >>> >>> here, without knowing the implementation, the caller of Hai know that Hai >>> will not do any IO operation at all. >>> >>> I've tried to create an analysis tool to do that before. I need to mark the >>> pure function with "Pure" suffix, >>> the code above will be >>> >>> func HaiPure(x interface{}) int { >>> val := 42 >>> if x, ok := x.(interface { ValuePure() int }); ok { >>> val += x.ValuePure() >>> } >>> return val >>> } >>> >>> But when it comes to passing a function as a parameter, it will become more >>> subtle >>> >>> purefunc Hai(x purefunc() int) int { >>> return 42 + x() >>> } >>> >>> // this should generate a compile error >>> a := 20 >>> fmt.Println(Hai(purefunc() int { >>> a += 1 // side effect >>> fmt.Println("something") // side effect >>> return a >>> })) >>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:56:23 AM UTC+7 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM bugpowder <mit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I'd guess the compiler could then enforce it (see if any non-pure marked >>>> > function is called from a pure one), it could exploit it (e.g. play with >>>> > evaluation order, cache, etc), and other such things? >>>> >>>> The compiler can already tell whether a function is pure, so I don't >>>> think that adding a keyword would lead to any better optimization. >>>> >>>> I agree that adding the keyword would let the compiler enforce it, but >>>> that doesn't seem all that big a benefit to me. It also seems like >>>> something that could be done by an analysis tool rather than requiring >>>> a change to the language. >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 1:00 AM Ian Lance Taylor <ia...@golang.org> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:47 AM <kurnia...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Hi, I don't know if this kind of idea is already discussed before. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I have an idea of adding pure function marker/type on golang, it is >>>> >> > just like "constexpr" on C++ or "const fn" on Rust, whether this >>>> >> > function is evaluated at compile time if the input is known at >>>> >> > compile time is another discussion, >>>> >> > I don't think this idea is hard to implement >>>> >> > >>>> >> > to my understanding, a pure function is a function that doesn't have >>>> >> > a side effect, so we can limit pure function to: >>>> >> > - unable to call non-pure function >>>> >> > - unable to modify a variable that is not declared on current >>>> >> > function (like a global variable) >>>> >> > >>>> >> > for this purpose, we can think receiver as input to the function >>>> >> >>>> >> ... >>>> >> >>>> >> > what do you guys think about this idea? >>>> >> >>>> >> You didn't really explain what we would gain by adding this to the >>>> >> language. It's clearly already possible to write pure functions. How >>>> >> does it help to add the ability to explicitly mark a function as pure? >>>> >> >>>> >> Ian >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> >> Groups "golang-nuts" group. >>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> >> an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcXOdCc8Zz8mXAmghLm%2B6%3Dvi8S8zG_3Phrv2Hy-w%3Dm70kQ%40mail.gmail.com. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> > Groups "golang-nuts" group. >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> > an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com. >>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAACdnTAKTKQxU_K5xRqHGDKKBEhyTAq6%3D6q1HK%2BgDUewgJW1aw%40mail.gmail.com. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/RfruW8qemOg/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/c75305e2-27e4-4a33-9111-d5b1c54eb9c9n%40googlegroups.com. > > > > -- > Regards, > Kurniagusta Dwinto > Fakultas Ilmu Komputer, Universitas Indonesia > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEz1khoDwcKXdieicdSgXGQ8ruwKw4m3FCh8sSkTVoOcOqb2SA%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcWjup%2B-cZA33-op4fuks2ZUXeUBrEWR3n-8-2XPCgAdVg%40mail.gmail.com.